Friday, December 30, 2011

A link to a commentary by Warren Redlich that is critical of Eric Dondero. Warren's piece includes one of my earlier criticisms of Dondero and some amusing anecdotes about him in the comments section. (For those late to the party, Eric Dondero is an unphilosophical political hack who has an insane vendetta against his former boss, Ron Paul.)

Ron Paul and R. J. Harrisadvocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.

While we're airing dirty laundry, let me air some of Dondero's. He's a militarist. He literally believes "My military, right or wrong." If tomorrow, the military was tasked with rounding up Jews (or Muslims) and putting them all into concentration camps, Dondero would champion the process, so long as the U.S. military was doing the work. I asked him point blank if he believed that his allegiance to the military was more important than the libertarian aspects of his philosophy, and he said "yes." Make of that, what you will. (In the past, he's defended the door-to-door gun confiscations that occurred in New Orleans in 2006, whether the occupant was home, consented, or not. So much for Dondero's "libertarianism.")

As further proof that Dondero is totally unphilosophical, he started a group called "Libertarians for Guiliani" after the famous debate where Ron Paul stood up to Guiliani's bullying on the issue of foreign interventionism. Dondero took this group so seriously that he ended his minor friendship (my good-natured toleration of him) with me over my lack of willingness to mindlessly join it.

Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer of Paul's who was fired for disavowing Paul's noninterventionist stance on foreign policy. Later, after being fired, he threatened to run against Paul, before he realized he was delusional and didn't stand a snowball's chance in Haiti of beating Paul.

I know Dondero better than most people. I stayed at his house for about a month and a half in 2004, back before I knew what a militarist lunatic whackjob he was. At the time I only wondered how he could screw up the best job in the world: working for Ron Paul, the only elected libertarian. The more I learned about Dondero, the more I learned that his libertarianism was skin deep, but that his commitment to interventionism defines his whole personality.

How did Dondero wind up working for Paul? He testified against the draft, since he's in favor of an all-volunteer military. This was a noble thing to do in the 1980s, when Reagan was still putting people in prison for agitating against the draft. Since Dondero was a veteran, his testimony was seen as being especially legitimate. In spite of opposing the draft, Dondero loves all things having to do with the U.S. Military. ...He is a worshipper of military might.

A few years ago, I introduced Dondero to the most legitimate, libertarian arguments for foreign interventionism that he now has, by introducing him to R.J. Rummel's webpage. I regret doing so, because it legitimized his arguments in his own mind, without raising the standard of his arguments. Dondero believes 100% and in all cases that "the ends justify the means." Thus, he feels justified in using any tactics whatsoever to win an argument. Instead of the R.J. Rummel material refocusing Dondero's debate style so we could have a real argument, he clings to red herrings, straw man arguments, and ad-hominems that lack rhyme or reason. And he spends about half of every day online, plastering public fora with his insane rantings. (One reason many people suspect him of being a paid agent provocateur.)

I don't know precisely why he's like this. Perhaps he's a paid agent provocateur, as many in the libertarian movement have postulated. I do know that he has absolutely no standards of logic or reason whatsoever. If someone too soundly defeats his arguments, as Andrew Jacobs and Paulie Cannoli have done in the past, he resorts to insults and ad-hominems.

Now, is Dondero right about Paul? Many old people are uncomfortable around rap music and openly gay behavior. Ron Paul is probably no different (although I can't say, because I've never met the man, and Dondero is highly unreliable). But Ron Paul has the ideas that defeat institutionalized homophobia and institutionalized racism. Has Ron ever voted the wrong way in congress? Yes. When a vote came up for liberalizing the punishment standards for rape in DC, so that juries would stop acquiting rapists for fear of sentencing the wrong guy to a cruel and unusual punishment, that bill also would have legalized then-illegal anal sex or "sodomy." Paul voted "No." It's clear in hindsight that Paul voted the wrong way on that, and that James Peron was right to confront him about it, as some commenters have noted below.

However, the bill that Paul voted against was a mix of various subjects, a practice that deserves to be recognized as wrong, especially in the absence of a line-item veto. Did Paul fully understand what he was voting against, or was he simply voting against a complex bill with lots of different subject matter in it, that he didn't understand? When in doubt, it's best to vote no, and not be surprised later.

And to attack Paul for this when he's advanced the cause of individual liberty more than anyone else in the past 10 years? ...That's a profound mistake.

Paul is the ONLY candidate talking about ending the grotesque and mass-incarcerating war on (some) drugs. (A war which disproportionately imprisons poor minorities, btw.) He's also the only candidate talking about abolishing the grotesque and rights-violating BATFE or war on (some) guns. In short, Paul is the only candidate who believes in the Bill of Rights and its fourth amendment. For that, noone should consider voting for anyone else in the GOP primary.

Paul's also the only candidate talking about ending the debt enslavement of all Americans to the Federal Reserve. (Something Eric Dondero isn't smart enough to care about.)

Paul's also the only candidate talking about ending grotesque overspending (and bombing) on the part of the U.S. military (and its industrial complex).

For Dondero to betray his old boss, and America's best shot at electoral freedom over a personal vendetta is disgusting. But then, I think Dondero is a disgusting human being.

Since Dondero spoke about Paul's antiquated personal tastes, I feel turnabout is only fair play.

Direct quotes from Dondero:"Women don't understand politics, and shouldn't be involved with politics."(He said this when his wife, a chinese immigrant, was defending Mao Tse Tung, and Mao's policies, at Dondero's house, in 2004)"Atlas Shrugged is my second favorite book, right after Dickens' 'A Tale of Two Cities'"(Interesting. ...Too bad he didn't understand much of what he read.)

Also, regarding Dondero's character: For years he refused to take down a retracted quote from me on his webpage stating something to the effect that he was 'the best petitioner in the country.' (And why would this matter, even if it were true? Mercenary petition circulation is hardly an intellectual pursuit, in the form it currently stands. Dondero is a right-wing pseudo-libertarian political petitioner. He is not libertarian, and doesn't limit himself to working for libertarian causes. He gathers about 1/2 the petition signatures that a mercenary such as Russell Baggett collects on any given day.)

Here's a brief forum post I wrote regarding some of the problem areas of Dondero's thinking. All are free to repost it and quote from it:

Google "Eric Dondero a Real Life Master Shake" for a great essay on Dondero. I know in great detail what a scumbag and agent provocateur Eric Dondero is. Anyone from the media who wants a few entertaining true anecdotes about Eric Dondero is encouraged to call me. 312-730-4037 the insane rantings of Dondero shouldn't be taken too seriously.

1) His wife is a maoist, but Eric Dondero says that's OK, because "...Women shouldn't be involved with politics."2) Ron Paul fired Dondero when Dondero started claiming at press-releases and public events that Paul had reversed his position, and favored the Iraq war. Paul had to yell at him and remind him "You work for me." (Not a lot of people have seen Paul this angry, which further points to how principled the man is.)3) Dondero claimed to be friends with me at one point. (I had stayed at his house while putting the LP on the ballot in 2004 in TX because a LP-member friend of his, Scott Kohlhaas, had arranged that. After the very anti-war Badnarik got the nomination, Dondero went nuts and said he was now a "lifelong enemy of the LP.") I thought then that Dondero was not a good libertarian, because he was anti-libertarian in his foreign policy, but on most domestic issues, Dondero is somewhat libertarian. So I remained a friendly acquaintance of his. In 2007, when I refused to endorse his prima-facie fascist and idiotic group "Libertarians for Guiliani," I said "I hope this doesn't mean we still can't be friends." and he replied "Actually Jake, it does. No further contact necessary." He then hung up. I haven't spoken with him since, and good riddance!4) Prior to ending the friendship, when I pointed out that I didn't need military protection at its current cost in lives and tax dollars, Dondero said "Who's going to protect you?" and I said "I'll protect myself. I'm a gun owner." Dondero then said "Gun guys can't protect the US!" (I'm not sure Dondero comprehends that former military and current reservists are also gun owners, and that no nation could ever invade and occupy a nation as well-armed as the USA. ...LOL.) This servile mindset of Dondero that we need a bloated military or we'll all be killed, is a weak and un-libertarian, not to mention un-American, mindset.5) Dondero claims that foreign interventionism is libertarian, and that if you're not a foreign interventionist, you cannot be a libertarian. This makes him laughably wrong, and one doesn't really need to pay any attention to him after he makes this clear. In fact, only a few self-proclaimed libertarians are interventionist, such as Christopher Hitchens and R. J. Rummel.6) Dondero claims that military men are all libertarian, because "anyone who hires a prostitute or uses drugs is a libertarian." Even without pointing out that sailors who use prostitutes aren't necessarily 100% of sailors, Dondero's argument is absurd. I guess that makes foreign dictators "libertarian," given the tales of decadence that I've heard while overseas (even though they put their own people to death for doing the same). I guess that Dondero can't understand the concept of "hypocrisy." (Which is funny, since it so often applies to him.)7) Another amusing incident was when Scott Kohlhaas of the AK LP (a paid petitioner), Anthony Garcia of the TX LP (the 2004 TX LP petition coordinator), myself, and Eric Dondero were all out eating a mexican dinner. A program director of the liberal radio station, KPFT, Clay Smith struck up a conversation with Scott Kohlhaas and Anthony Garcia, because they had identified themselves as libertarians who disagreed with Eric Dondero. He offered to help them express the libertarian viewpoint on the radio. Dondero was so stupid and belligerent that instead of allow the men to exchange numbers, to the benefit of the libertarian message, he said "You guys don't understand! This guy is liberal scum! If he's going to be here, I'm not!" And he threw down his fork, and ran out of the restaurant without paying. As I've tried to make clear, Eric Dondero is quite a nutjob!8) Interestingly, Eric Dondero is also a racist eugenicist. He stated to me at one point, in 2004, "Blacks aren't as smart as whites." I roundly criticized him for this, and he tried to justify it by referencing "The Bell Curve," by Charles Murray, a book I admittedly haven't read. Nonetheless, when I started pointing to examples of black men who were clearly smarter than Eric, he qualified his statement by claiming that "Overall, blacks are less intelligent, although there are some smart ones." (If that's not an exact quote, it's very close, and captures the sentiment, 100%.) Eric claims this view point, because his "second major passion, beyond politics," according to him, "is anthropology." His bookshelves are full of books about primitive man (I saw this when I was there in 2004). Now, reading books by Louis Leakey doesn't usually make someone a racist, ...unless they're like Eric Dondero, and they're scouring the texts for things that could possibly justify their self-superior view of existence. Part of this viewpoint comes from holding Theodore Roosevelt as a personal idol (T.R. was a racist eugenicist as well, if my memory serves me correctly).

So, if I'm faced with Ron Paul's version of the facts, or Dondero's version, I think I'll stick with Ron Paul's version. No offense to "The Real Life Master Shake!"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.htmlLet me first say that Ron Paul is right in this essay, but that there are some minor sins of omission. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and believe he's the only candidate worth supporting in the current GOP or Democratic races.

Ron Paul writes: "The real reason liberals hate the concept of states' right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government."

I hate it when libertarian politicians, who ostensibly wish to generate pro-freedom votes, paint everyone who identifies themselves with a 'suitcase word' (such as "liberal," or "conservative" -words that describe many phenomena, values, conditions, or independent variables) as possessing the most hateful formulation of that suitcase word.

Paul could equally correctly have written:"The real reason conservatives love the concept of states' right has nothing to do with limiting the power of the federal government, but rather reflects a hostility toward minorities who would benefit from an even application of the 14th Amendment and true equality under the law." (And it would be just as wrong as slamming liberals for opposing states' right. In truth, implementing states' rights is a strategy for decentralizing power, not an end goal. As an end goal, only the preservation of individual rights is valid.)

The point isn't that Paul is wrong. Generally speaking, he's not. But he'd have been a lot more correct if he didn't paint all liberals with such a broad brush. He should have qualified his statement by saying "many liberals" or even "most liberals" or "the liberal establishment." He could have singled out ranting socialists who call themselves liberals, such as Chris Matthews (who apparently believes that all decentralists are racists). This would have left a little room in his statement for the minority of well-educated libertarian-leaning liberals (many of whom support his candidacy) to not feel like they were being painted "Obama blue." Moreover: is there any reason to alienate the "socially liberal" people who mistakenly voted for Obama because they incorrectly thought he would keep his campaign promise to stop raiding state medical marijuana collectives? Those people should vote for Paul!

In one of his most famous essays, F. A. Hayek (one of Ron Paul's heroes) states that the best word to describe his libertarian political views is still "liberal," given the history of the term. From Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative, point 6:" (also at Lew Rockwell.com):"What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call "liberal." I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings...

...In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/hayek1.html

I also wish Dr. Paul would have included more criticism of the drug laws, gun laws, and other mala prohibita that victimizes minorities in our society. You can't correct unfairness caused by government force until you identify it. To be fair, Paul has done this before on Nationwide TV, just not in this essay on the same subject. It would have made an excellent addition to the argument that in order to defeat racism, one needs to end institutionalized racism allowed by selective enforcement of mala prohibita.

Of course, that could fill ten times the space to fully explain and defend.

This criticism is minor, since Paul's main point is correct. Still, it's incomplete and too general. Now is the time for specifics, and for victory. I loved it when Paul was pointing out how racist the drug war is, on TV the other day, and how the drug war denies both property rights and equality under the law. He needs to do a lot more of that.

Every time he criticizes liberals, I'd also like to hear a criticism of conservatives. Neither position is legitimate, in its modern formulation.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

The FAQ for Steven's new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Highly recommended, and well-informed about the similar work of Professor R.J. Rummel, whose several excellent books are free online at the University of Hawaii.

An excellent speech by Pinker on the topic of his previously mentioned book can be seen here, at TED.com.

The work of these brave intellectuals extends our comprehension of the enlightenment, and shows the way toward expanding circles of logic, compassion, and justice around each and every individual. I favor a renewed effort to reinstate proper juries in the USA as the best means at pursuing expanded enlightenment values.

Newt Gingrich is a grotesque demogogue. Here are two things you need to know about him:

1) Newt introduced a bill in 1997 that would sentence individuals to death for possession of two ounces of marijuana. For those of you who aren't intimately acquainted with marijuana or the black market, this amount of marijuana is often encountered in this context: sell one ounce, and have the profit from that sale pay for the remaining ounce (an amount that might last a regular user for one month). So, your son or daughter at college has a room-mate who is selling marijuana as a small-time dealer and heavy user. He/She doesn't want to pay for his/her marijuana, so he/she buys two ounces (which, even if smoked all at once, would not kill them, as an entire bottle of LEGAL hard liquor could kill someone without a significant tolerance). Under a totalitarian Gingrich America, your son or daughter is now being sentenced to death, if they try to take that marijuana across an arbitrary state border. Newt also supports eliminating jury trials for drug crimes, as Singapore has. (How does that work in a constitutional republic?! What does the word "republican" even mean to a totalitarian like Newt?) Now, Gingrich did this when anti-drug hysteria made his actions seem reasonable, and he defended this stance less than two weeks ago, here. Do you want to vote for someone who embraces state-sponsored murder when the political climate dictates that the culture is bankrupt enough for murder? If so, you're absolutely no different than the nazis who did the same thing in 1934 Germany. Hitler, like Newt, informed the world about what he intended to do, before he did it. Those who supported or support either man deserve whatever retribution the defenders of the enlightenment could heap upon them.

2) Newt was paid 1.6 Million by Fannie Mae, a quasi-government institution that was behind the easy government-backed credit and corresponding mortgage crash. He claims this Federal Reserve-backed (coercively tax-financed) as "private sector" work. Don't you wish your "private sector" work would pay you a gauranteed $1.6 million un-earned dollars? If you buy into Newt's interpretation of the events, you're dumber than a boot. Working for tax dollars =/= "private sector work."

Now, if you support the juryless death sentences Newt wants to hand out in example #, you're an immoral, evil person. And if you want your government masters to make oodles of cash on your labor, as indicated by example #2, you're a servile sucker.

...To vote for Newt Gingrich, you've got to be both evil, and a sucker.

Now, Mitt Romney doesn't often exhibit the sociopathic swagger of Newt Gingrich in public (unless it's directed toward Dave Ridley of The Ridley Report), but his policies are more or less identical to Newt's. Mitt's also a supporter of the DEA, ONDCP, and Federal Reserve (and every other big-government program). Neither of these clowns would repeal anything: they are simply lying to you if they say they would, since they never give any specifics that they can possibly be held to. And neither of them would ever dare to impound federal funds, or issue pardons to mala prohibita offenders, as a Libertarian candidate would.

Perry's a blithering idiot who can't remember his core reasons for running for president (at least any such reasons beyond number one and number two). Bachmann's an unelectable theocratic simpleton who alternately champions and condemns Ron Paul, without a clear strategy for dealing with Iran, other than "delegate to the generals" (who take their marching orders from the central bankers who will profit from endless war). Santorum is a mindless and unelectable social bigot whose grotesque bigotry has been roundly condemned and attacked by the gay community.

In short, if you don't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, you're a damned idiot, and a traitor to everything about America that remains free.

Friday, December 23, 2011

A legitimate government is based on consent of the governed. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states this.

However, in a free, enlightened society with individual rights, there is more than just consent. After all, the majority of Germans consented to the rise of the nazi police state, and that state was so illegitimate, that it was overthrown by force, and few people would argue that that outcome was rightfully so.

In a free society, people can't be deprived of their freedom or property without due process. A part of due process is the establishment of a reason for depriving someone of their freedom or property. One legitimate reason might be that the person has committed a crime.

There are two categories of crime. One is legitimate (mala in se - "a crime, in and of itself"), and one is an illegitimate excuse for a tyrant to interfere with a previously free human being (mala prohibita - "a crime created solely by the act of legislation" - "a victimless crime").

So what constitutes "mala in se," or actual crime? Well, every malum in se has two elements:1) Injuryand2) Intent to Injure

These two elements constitute the "cause of action" or "corpus delecti" (body of the crime). The body of the crime must be provided (this is called "habeas corpus" or "provide the body"), or there is no legitimate "cause of action" against anyone. As a matter of due process, the "corpus delecti" must be proven, with evidence (such as witnesses, material evidence of an injured party, a complaining party, etc.).

Does anyone here ever remember being taught that if they were accused of a crime, they had a right to confront the witnesses against them? If so, please follow the following link, and see if you can find any opportunity for someone accused of tax evasion to argue their innocence, or confront the witnesses against them.

In the audio at the prior link, lawyer Marc Stevens shows that, in our illegitimate and unconstitutional police state, the state no longer follows due process, and no longer presents evidence of wrongdoing before it attempts to punish us. For this reason, our consent to the government should no longer be considered implicit, since the government has broken its obligation to abide by the rule of law.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone (both outspoken libertarians), have made no secret of their dislike of the bureaucratic destruction of modern air travel. In a famous episode of South Park, they skewered the TSA (and the Segue scooter) by having their characters favor a new travel device("It") over government-regulated air travel.

I'd personally love to see him study and then embrace the label of enlightenment values, and become a major donor to Ron Paul, R. J. Harris, Reason Foundation, etc... He could test the waters by joining Citizens in Charge, Institute for Justice, or contributing to the ACLU's lawsuit against the PATRIOT Act.

We need more enlightened actors today. There doesn't seem to be a John Lilburne, Thomas Paine, or Voltaire of our time, or perhaps there are more of them and each is at a lower level of visibility.

Even so, I hope Baldwin pulls a "Vince Vaughn" and puts the last few pieces of the puzzle together. He can start by reading "The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve" by G. Edward Griffin, or Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work." ...Anything by Hayek or Mises would also be good.

Baldwin is certainly on the margin of really figuring things out. ...And he's a great comic actor.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Newt Gingrich is a damned sociopathic idiot, proof below. Starting off, here's a portion of an interview he did last week:

Chris Moody, Interviewing Newt Gingrich for "The Ticket"

CM: Three Republican presidential candidates have shown an openness to handing over control of drugs and medical marijuana to the states. Would you continue the current federal policy making marijuana illegal in all cases or give the states more control?Newt: I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs.

I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.

CM: Why shouldn't the states have control over this? Why should this be a federal issue?Newt: Because I think you guarantee that people will cross state lines if it becomes a state-by-state exemption.

I don't have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans.

CM: Expand on what you mean by "aggressive."Newt: In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.

CM: In 1996, you introduced a bill that would have given the death penalty to drug smugglers. Do you still stand by that?Newt: I think if you are, for example, the leader of a cartel, sure. Look at the level of violence they've done to society. You can either be in the Ron Paul tradition and say there's nothing wrong with heroin and cocaine or you can be in the tradition that says, 'These kind of addictive drugs are terrible, they deprive you of full citizenship and they lead you to a dependency which is antithetical to being an American.' If you're serious about the latter view, then we need to think through a strategy that makes it radically less likely that we're going to have drugs in this country.

Places like Singapore have been the most successful at doing that. They've been very draconian. And they have communicated with great intention that they intend to stop drugs from coming into their country.

CM: In 1981, you introduced a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. What has changed?Newt: What has changed was the number of parents I met with who said they did not want their children to get the signal from the government that it was acceptable behavior and that they were prepared to say as a matter of value that it was better to send a clear signal on no drug use at the risk of inconveniencing some people, than it was to be compassionate toward a small group at the risk of telling a much larger group that it was okay to use the drug.

It's a change of information. Within a year of my original support of that bill I withdrew it.

CM: Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced a similar bill almost every year since.Newt: You have to admit, Ron Paul has a coherent position. It's not mine, but it's internally logical.

CM: Speaking of Ron Paul, at the last debate, he said that the war on drugs has been an utter failure. We've spent billions of dollars since President Nixon and we still have rising levels of drug use. Should we continue down the same path given the amount of money we've spent? How can we reform our approach?Newt: I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you're serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting--I don't think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.

Sometime in the next year we'll have a comprehensive proposal on drugs and it will be designed to say that we want to minimize drug use in America and we're very serious about it.

=========================================My comments on the above:

Gingrich believes in a constitutional republic? That's odd! Jefferson, Madison, and all of the Federalists AND Anti-Federalist republicans believed that ultimate power should be devolved to the states, and then to the individual! That part of their beliefs wasn't in controversy, just how best to achieve that. So, not only is Newt too damned stupid to see that the fourth amendment also applies to "scary negro property" (all of the drug laws have a racist origin, just google "Harry Anslinger" or "Why is marijuana illegal?"), he's also too stupid to favor state nullification, or jury nullification.

Where did this myth arise that Newt Gingrich is intelligent???? He's one of the stupidest, most bellicose, belligerent sociopaths the voters have ever put in office. Al Franken isn't right about much, but he's right about Newt Gingrich. The man is not only NOT an "idea man" --he isn't even fit to share the stage with Ron Paul.

And he even mentions Singapore's drug laws, when he encourages the idea that drug dealers should be put to death! (Newt also introduced a law that would put people to death for importing two ounces of marijuana! He also hypocritically admits to smoking it himself ...I guess he wants the person who sold it to him to be put to death --or, more likely, he wants a double standard that puts poor negroes to death, while allowing white offenders like himself a smack on the wrist! I've held two ounces in my hand before! So have a lot of college kids! ...Newt is a power-hungry psychopath who serves the prison industry!)

And how have Singapore's drug laws (that the once free USA exported to them!) turned out? Poor women smuggle the drugs in their vaginas, and they are sentenced to DEATH without TRIAL BY JURY, while the rich drug kingpins simply view it as a cost of doing business!!! Newt is not in favor of a Republican style of government, unless by "Republican" you mean authoritarian dictatorship. Seriously? He wants the death sentence for the people in all of our families who have smoked marijuana, if they've ever sold any of it to make ends meet? That is murder by government, people! Aren't we as Americans better than that? And what about the puritanical "christians" who gave us the drug war? Are you now willing to say that christians don't turn the other cheek, that we don't forgive? That we MURDER?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????

Just because Newt busses in 650 people to a damned bookstore doesn't and shouldn't mean he's a contender! He's just one more power-grasping sociopath.

If you vote for newt, then you totally and completely deserve to get the news tat while your daughter was a college, she started smoking pot, and ran afoul of Oklahoma's drug laws because her roommate is testifying against her for her possession of a quarter-pound, and now she's going to be put to death.

Anyone here who supports Newt Gingrich after reading this interview is sick in the head, and in no way favors a constitutional republic.

Every schedule 1 drug was legal in America before 1910. That's odd! From 1870-1910, the industrial revolution made America the wealthiest, freest, most innovative, most REPUBLICAN nation on earth! Newt stands directly in opposition to enlightenment values, trial by jury, and every other strong institutional limit on government power.

...And I didn't even scratch the surface of his corruption. I just focused on the worst aspects of his core philosophy.

He was a personal recipient of the bailouts ($2 million+). He divorced his wife when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He repeatedly contradicts himself, and yet his arrogance gives conformists the impression he's intelligent (because they've met so many intelligent people who are arrogant). As I listen to his blather on Fox News behind me (interview with Greta Van Sustern), he claims to admire Donald Trump (the bellicose asshole who tried to steal Vera Coking's house using eminent domain).

No candidate in the running is as mindlessly fascist as Newt Gingrich, with the possible exception of Mitt Romney. They both take their marching orders from the central bankers, without question or independent thought.

When you vote for Newt, you're voting for expanding the US prison industry, until there's a cell for everyone.

About Me

I am a marketer of financial services, and I oppose the Federal Reserve System, because I oppose forced servitude (slavery). I don't want to work for the Federal Reserve. I don't want my labor to help prop up any government. As such, I've grown very hungry for a free market that does not make me the unwilling accomplice of coercion. I'm also someone who continuously seeks to move to an environment containing a greater number of options. An environment that contains more options is called a "market". The term "market" is a broad designation that contains all choices and incentives (positive and negative) to exercise those choices. There are many synonyms for "alternatives" to the market. Here are a few: statism, collectivism, coercion, bullying, tyranny, dictatorship, totalitarianism, unfreedom, "mixed economy", socialism, communism, fascism, democracy, republicanism, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, conservatism, liberalism, theft. These are all terms that are synonymous or at least aspects of the same thing.